Arsenal 1-1 Liverpool: amazing late drama

Robin van Persie broke the record for the latest-ever Premier League goal…then Dirk Kuyt broke it again.

Alex Song was only fit enough for the bench, so Arsene Wenger played Abou Diaby and Jack Wilshere in the centre of midfield. Theo Walcott came in for Andrei Arshavin.

Kenny Dalglish named his expected side, although he had to make two like-for-like changes because of injury during the game – both Fabio Aurelio and Jamie Carragher were forced off.

Amongst the crazy few final moments, the main tactical story from this game was simple – Arsenal struggled to break down a disciplined Liverpool defence.

Early stages

The game started relatively even, but when Arsenal settled down into a good rhythm, they started to dominate possession and pushed Liverpool back deep into their own half. Theo Walcott and Emmanuel Eboue caused problems down the right, and Arsenal looked dangerous.

Liverpool were essentially losing the numbers game in midfield. Against Manchester City last week, Luis Suarez was given license to stay high up the pitch and look for space in between the lines. City were poor that day and Liverpool could afford to do without an extra man in the midfield zone, but here Arsenal’s possession game was causing too many problems in the centre of the pitch.

Midfield battle

The home side’s 3 v 2 advantage was a problem in itself for Liverpool, but it especially harmed their chances of pressing properly – with Cesc Fabregas playing close to the midfield, if Jay Spearing and Lucas Leiva came up to the pitch, they’d simply be bypassed by Arsenal’s midfield triangle. As a result, they had to sit deep, offering little attacking threat in open play.

Liverpool could have lived with this, content to soak up pressure before playing on the counter-attack, but Dalglish couldn’t really justify giving Suarez such freedom, since he was having a poor game when he got the ball – he moved into decent positions, but his passing was wayward and he seemed unlikely to create chances.

Therefore, midway through the first half, Dalglish instructed the Uruguyan to move from his support striker role to a left-sided position, pushing Raul Meireles infield and switching to more of a 4-5-1. This gave Liverpool more bodies in the centre, allowed them to close down, and though Arsenal continued to dominate the ball, they looked less dangerous.

Until then, Liverpool had survived because of excellent performances from the four defenders, plus good work from Lucas, who patrolled the zone in front of the back four, and also helped double up against Arsenal’s wingers (particularly Walcott). Arsenal’s delivery from wide areas into the box was poor, as the chalkboard below shows.

After half time, Liverpool seemed to be content with the draw. Carroll’s departure through injury resulted in Dalglish sending on Jonjo Shelvey and pushing Kuyt upfront as the lone striker – Liverpool seemed to want to shut up shop.

Wenger’s changes were numerous – Nicklas Bendtner, Andrei Arshavin and Alex Song all came on, and Arsenal’s attackers switched positions to give Liverpool a different threat, but they still found it difficult to play through Liverpool’s defence, who sat very deep.

From the chalkboards, it’s interesting how rare it was that Liverpool actually needed to cut out an attack in their own penalty area. The chalkboards below shows that no interceptions and only four tackles (all of which happened in the first half) took place in the penalty area, and for a side that sat quite deep, Liverpool’s interceptions are surprisingly high up the pitch.

This indicates that Liverpool pressed quite well in the midfield zone, and that Arsenal’s use of the ball around the penalty box was poor. Fabregas, despite winning the penalty, didn’t inspire Arsenal enough in the centre of the pitch, and his passing was not as good as it usually is. Fabregas’ role in the team means that he’s often the one trying the ‘killer’ pass and therefore it’s entirely acceptable that a lot of red arrows will show up in his passing chalkboard – but even so, he gave the ball away too cheaply in this match.

The late penalties owed little to tactics, and much to tiredness and poor decision making.

Conclusion

Arsenal narrowly avoided a third consecutive home game without scoring, and essentially relied on a clumsy tackle from Spearing for the goal. It’s easy to continue to blame Arsenal’s problems at the back for their (relative) woes, but the attacking band of three has to take responsibility for the lack of goals in recent weeks. The final ball from Fabregas, Nasri and Walcott was continually disappointing here, and the truth is that Arsenal aren’t doing the things you usually associate with Arsenal – the passing is sloppy, the attacks are too slow, the movement upfront isn’t good.

Liverpool’s attacking performance was a little disappointing following the game against Manchester City – Suarez and Carroll rarely combined, and with the two banks of four sitting deep, it was difficult for Liverpool to get midfield runners up to join them. The defensive performance was very good, however, and Liverpool’s record this season against the clubs above them in the table is very impressive.

83 Responses to “ Arsenal 1-1 Liverpool: amazing late drama ”

FidelArsenal on April 17, 2011 at 11:47 pm

I know this isn’t a website about refereeing decisions or controversy, but I only have this to say: The rule about stoppage time being down to the referee’s interpretation is stupid. There should be a set time, and the game ends at that point.

Liverpool scored in the 112th minute after there were supposed to be 98 minutes. It just doesn’t make sense to me. What warranted 4 extra minutes?

Sorry to clog up your site with this statement that really has nothing to do with tactics, but this just bothers me so much. The whistle should have been blown after Suarez’s free-kick, if not before it even happened.

Great write-up as always of course ZM.

Dan on April 17, 2011 at 11:54 pm

I wonder if with modern radio technology, the referee’s watch can’t be linked to the stadium clock. Surely that can’t be too difficult.

Idea on April 18, 2011 at 12:11 am

I don’t understand why they can’t stop the clock for set-peice setups (including time between goals and next kickoff)…

Anonymous on April 18, 2011 at 1:33 am

There was 4 added minutes to the original 8 because of when the free kick was given during what would have been Liverpool’s final attack. The kick was so close to the box the players from both sides were happy to draw it out as it would have been the last play of the game had the ball not bounced straight to a Liverpool player – who the referee decided was fouled while playing the ball.

JediRage on April 18, 2011 at 7:50 am

Where’s Steven Smith when you need him. He’d tell you (FidelArsenal) to get lost in crystal clear Insult Language.

Alessandro on April 18, 2011 at 9:58 am

Not only that, but the stated amount of injury time is a *minimum*. The penalty decsision was at 98 minutes. But if you count in the time to set up Arsenal’s penalty, plus RvP’s celebration (shirt off, & being booked), and then the messing around during the set-up of the wall for the free kick, it works out.

Florian on April 18, 2011 at 12:34 pm

This would result in quite long games. A friend of mine once had to do this to see what effect would be (He is an referee). He ended up with about 25 minutes of play.

Sam on April 17, 2011 at 11:59 pm

Umm, the 30 seconds it took to take the penalty + the minute Arsenal celebrated, plus the minute it took get the wall against the free kick set up + the 30 seconds it took to take the penalty. What would have been stupid would have been to end the game at exactly 98 minutes when there had been so many stoppages in injury time. Granted, I’d be majorly pissed as an Arsenal fan, because I always think it sucks when there’s a penalty given in a non-dangerous situation, but I don’t think you can complain about the amount of time.

Hmmmmm I’ve seen too many penalties these days. Yesterday was in Bernabeu, now in Emirates…

Truthandinsight on April 18, 2011 at 12:38 am

Sam – technically what you have said about the timing is correct – but I will explain why so many people get up-in-arms when this sort of thing happens (i.e. added-time in “added-time”): Basically, its down to ratios.

What I mean by this, is that the 8 minutes of added-time that was declared by the 4th official is supposed to cover the ENTIRE 45 minutes of the second half. Bear in mind, that in this instance, 6 of those 8 minutes were for Carraghers injury alone. Therefore, the remaining 2 minutes of the 8 minutes were given to cover the other 39 minutes of the second half (45 minus 6 for Carraghers injury). Therefore, if, over 39 minutes of playing time only 2 minutes of added time is given, (or 8 minutes from 45 minutes), then, going by that ratio, there should absolutely not be allowed to be declared an additional 3 minutes of added-time for any stoppages during the 8 minutes of added-time. Basically, we are seeing another example of inconsistency within Footballs endorsing of its rules.

I remember this EXACT issue came up in the Manchester Derby at Old Trafford last season (when Michael Owen scored the late-late winner). All the pundits covering the game said that there were sufficient stoppages DURING the added-time period which validated the referee adding on the additional two minutes or so of time in which Michael Owen was able to score in. The F.A. need to clarify a procedure on this, so that everyone is clear on what to expect from a referee when adding on time, otherwise a referee like todays ends up looking like a Liverpool fan.

Bbbuce on April 18, 2011 at 2:15 am

Not only that but the fourth official only gives an ‘indication’ of how much added time is to be played, it’s generally a minimum, the ref still has the final say and can add as much time as he believes needs to be ‘made up’

Sam on April 18, 2011 at 5:10 am

I don’t think that’s an entirely fair comparison in this case. In regular time, there were zero goals, zero penalties and only a couple fks given within shooting range. In extra time there were 2 goals, 2 penalties, and 1 fk that no one was in any hurry to take. Granted, I thought 10 min should have been awarded originally, but in this case the difference in ratios was mostly appropriate.

Josef on April 18, 2011 at 5:16 pm

as an american who grew up watching basketball (and how ill is it that the bulls might be contenders again?!?), the only on-field rule I’d change for soccer would be, as Gianluca Vialli suggested in The Italian Job, to eliminate the constantly running clock style and instead stop it when the ball goes out of play or for fouls/free kicks/etc. Then there’s no ref’s-discretion time.

Dan on April 18, 2011 at 1:57 am

According to OPTA, Arsenal and Liverpool are joint top of the league for most penalties conceded (seven). So maybe it was appropriate.

Truthandinsight on April 18, 2011 at 7:36 am

Sam, if you look throughout the second half you’ll find that there were a number of free-kicks that “no one was in any hurry to take” (along with a few throw-ins, corners and goal-kicks). I cannot agree with you whatsoever that “in this case the difference in ratios was mostly appropriate.”

Truthandinsight on April 18, 2011 at 8:52 am

also – there were numerous substitutions by both sides (four, in the second half, I believe). The protocol with substitutions is that 30 seconds is supposed to be added on for each substitution. If there were four substitutions in the second half then that amounts to two minutes. That means, of the 2 minutes of added-time remaining from the 8 minutes (remember, 6 minutes of the 8 were attributed to the Carragher injury) there were – yep, you guessed it – 2 minutes given for the substitutions. That means, therefore, that within those 8 minutes of added-time there were given zero minutes (or even seconds) for any of the slow free-kicks/corners/throw-ins/goal-kicks that occurred during the ENTIRE second half. Therefore, based on that procedure, it is (again, I’ll say it) ridiculous that the referee decided to add on a further 3 to 4 minutes for whatever stoppages/time-wasting occurred DURING the 8 minutes of time-added-on.

It’s a shame that I feel I have to harp on about this, but it’s an important point that needs to be understood.

Anonymous on April 18, 2011 at 2:22 pm

Truthandinsight. There were 5 substitutions so using your logic you would round up to 3 added minutes making it 9 – for starters. And you don’t need to harp on about this because whatever point you’re trying to make (upset arsenal didn’t get 3 points) doesn’t need to be understood by everyone else because it’s wrong.

Truthandinsight on April 18, 2011 at 2:54 pm

Anonymous. From your post it is clear that in fact I DO have to harp on about this as you FAIL to understand the important and FACTUAL point I was making. Namely, that there were numerous substitutions by both sides and that it is STANDARD protocol with substitutions that 30 seconds is added on for each substitution. That means, of the 2 minutes of added-time remaining from the 8 minutes (remember now, 6 minutes of the 8 were attributed to the Carragher injury) there were 2 and a half minutes given for the substitutions, like I said. That means, therefore, that within those said 8 minutes of added-time there were given zero minutes (to the nearest minute) for any of the non-football-related miscellaneous action that occurred during the ENTIRE second half. The ENTIRE half remember. Therefore, based on that procedure, it is (again, I’ll say thrice) RIDICULOUS that the referee decided to add on a further 3 to 4 minutes for whatever stoppages/time-wasting occurred DURING the 8 minutes of time-added-on.

Should the need arise for me to make this salient point again I shall do with with with a heavy heart and a droopy that will last until my boyfriend’s next visit in June.

Sam on April 18, 2011 at 7:10 pm

@TandI

You’re right. What I should have said was “more appropriate than usual.”

Truthandinsight on April 18, 2011 at 8:54 pm

I’ll make it known that the comment at 2:54pm in response to Anonymous which was attributed to me was not actually me -it was a piss take (a very good one, I’ll admit, and yes, it did hurt, just a little bit). As a quick reply to anonymous – yes you are correct, there were 5 substitutions, I got that one wrong – however those 5 substitutions were all allotted within the 8 minutes held up by the board – they were not to be taken into account by the referee. I am not an Arsenal fan, I’m a West Ham fan (for my sins – going down, going down, going grrrr…..) and am not upset that Arsenal didn’t get 3 points, and the point I am hammering home is definitely valid, because as it stands nobody knows where they stand with Refs adding on time after the allocated time is up……

…..I’m done.

dw on April 18, 2011 at 6:28 am

The entire timing “system”, as with so many other aspects of the laws of football, is stupid.

1. Have a separate official whose sole duty is to keep time.
2. Make the clock publicly viewable.
3. The clock only runs when the ball is in play.
4. When the alloted time is up, play continues until a goal is scored or the ball goes out of play for a goal-kick or throw-in.

The time per half would have to be reduced from 45 minutes to something more like 25 minutes.

No possibility of timewasting (except through skill on the ball). No need for “injury time”, added minutes, etc.

Florian on April 18, 2011 at 12:35 pm

See comment above, 25 minutes of true play would result in games of 120 minutes under current rules.

dw on April 18, 2011 at 10:50 pm

It probably depends on the match. 25 minutes per half was just a guess. We should probably study how many minutes of play actually take place over a season and base it on that.

My guess is that there is currently a large amount of variation between flowing games and ones that are constantly interrupted by free-kicks, etc.

Dave C on April 19, 2011 at 2:07 am

DW, I fully agree with you on this one. I think there have been studies done that show that the average “ball in play” time in most “90 minute” games is actually about 58mins. Round that off to 60, and we would seem to have a perfect scenario – we should make games last 60 official minutes, with the proviso that the clock is stopped at every single stoppage in play.

I think then the final whistle should go as soon as the clock reaches 60:00 – no need to wait for the next natural stoppage.

dw on April 19, 2011 at 4:04 pm

[I can't reply to you directly because the levels of comments have gone too deep]

I think then the final whistle should go as soon as the clock reaches 60:00 – no need to wait for the next natural stoppage.

Then you have the problem of blowing the whistle just as someone is putting the ball into the net.

Strictly speaking the referee should do this under the current rules. The only exception is that time must be extended in order to allow “a penalty kick to be completed”. The fact that, with the exception of Clive Thomas in Brazil v. Sweden in the 1978 World Cup, referees never interrupt a play that looks likely to result in a goal, suggests that in this case the law is an ass, and it should be changed.

Dave C on April 19, 2011 at 6:50 pm

Then you have the problem of blowing the whistle just as someone is putting the ball into the net.
I don’t think this is a problem – just an unfortunate fact of the game – if you can’t score within the time allowed (60 mins of game time in this scenario), then too bad. Although I guess a “play to the next stoppage” idea isn’t bad either.

dw on April 20, 2011 at 7:09 am

I timed the first half of the Liverpool-Arsenal match. The ball was in play for 26 minutes or thereabouts (sometimes the TV cameras cut away from the action so I had to guess a bit). My guess is that most matches would have less time than this: both Liverpool and Arsenal were playing flowing football. It’s noticeable that the stoppages get more frequent as the players tire later in the half.

I would guess that the second half featured less than 26 minutes of ball in play, even with the added time. (Unfortunately I can’t time that one because I have to go to bed )

dw on April 22, 2011 at 11:37 pm

Hmm. The second half actually lasted 29 minutes of playing time. Although there was a big delay for the Carragher injury, there were some very long stretches of uninterrupted play later in the half that made up for it.

The Arsenal goal came at 28:19
The Liverpool free kick at 29:09
The Liverpool goal at 29:12

By the standard set by the first half, the game should have ended before either of the penalties.

TCF on April 18, 2011 at 2:55 pm

If Blatter and Platini don’t want video technology what chance does this have?

Uzzie on April 18, 2011 at 5:29 pm

Efan Ekoku said after the match that the 8 mins shown is a minimum not a maximum. And it is up to the referee’s disgression how many more mins he needed/wanted to add. So let’s not get into the technical details.

It is not the first nor will it ever be the last. From a neutral perspective, the draw is the most deserved result. Hence i guess apart from Arsenal fans, the rest of the football world doesn’t feel aggrieved about the decision.

Arsenal didn’t lose the title against Liverpool, they missed the chance against Wigan and etc.

dw on April 18, 2011 at 10:44 pm

And it is up to the referee’s disgression how many more mins he needed/wanted to add.

Yes, but it shouldn’t be.

Why not just make the result of the match “at the referee’s discretion”?

KC on April 19, 2011 at 5:27 pm

Its difficult to judge because the ref had to adhere to two rules; abiding by the 8 minutes that he set but he also has the rule where he can’t interrupt play that results in a goal. I can’t remember the exact times but the kick that was taken straight after RVP’s penalty goal was before the 8th minute right? And Lucas was subsequently fouled on the edge of the box before the 8th minute right? If not just disregard what I have to say.

So which rule does the Ref adhere to? The goal one or the 8 minutes stoppage time? Then it comes down to the free kick which would be the last kick of the game because its the last goal scoring opportunity. But then Eboue pretty much fouls Lucas before the ref can even blow his whistle AND it is still considered a goal scoring opportunity as its within the penalty area. If I was the ref I would be choosing the goal rule over the stoppage time rule right?

I know I have a very simplistic view on things and feel free to discredit all I have to say

dw on April 20, 2011 at 6:08 am

@KCthe rule where he can’t interrupt play that results in a goal

There is no such rule in the Laws of the Game. The only similar provision states that penalty kicks must be allowed “to be completed” before the game can end.

So Andre Marriner would have been completely within the rules had he blown the whistle just as Suarez was running up to take his edge-of-the-box free kick. In fact, according to the current rules, he _ought_ to have done so if his watch said that time was up.

The fact that no referee would ever signal the end of the match in such circumstances shows just how broken the current rules are.

draco on April 19, 2011 at 5:02 am

You basically recited laws of basketball. Change the rules when in doubt? Not exactly the only course of action

dw on April 19, 2011 at 3:41 pm

The laws of football get changed all the time. I believe that they are about to be revised to cover the all-important issue of snoods. The offside laws were changed significantly within the last decade or so.

This is a case where football can clearly learn from other sports. Unless you like having the result of a match depend upon when the referee feels like blowing his whistle.

Juan Carlos on April 20, 2011 at 3:54 pm

I really don’t think that the rules should (and in fact am sure they wont) be changed by a bunch of Arsenal fans that got angry for a late equalizer.

dw on April 20, 2011 at 3:59 pm

@Juan Carlos:

This isn’t about Arsenal. I’ve thought the rules should be changed this way ever since I was ten years old (and I’m now in my late thirties )

Dan on April 17, 2011 at 11:52 pm

I think Wenger has abandoned his plan B from earlier in the season of 442 and long balls. When Bendtner came on he spent far too much time on the right wing. Also, the team desperately missed Sagna’s crosses which have been much better than everybody else’s. I agree with the assessment of the Arsenal attacking and would like to add the lack of forward runs. There were far too few runs into the Liverpool box.

I hardly think Arsenal’s woes this season can be termed defensive. They simply aren’t quick and incisive enough in the attack to break down well organised deep defences. Arsenal’s defence has been excellent. Third least goals conceded, least shots on goal allowed in the league. It’s the goalscoring that has let them down in the past month and a half.

Liverpool’s passing was awful today. Not sure how much of it was due to Arsenal but they gave the ball away far too cheaply in my opinion.

Sam on April 18, 2011 at 12:00 am

Well, I think you could have just said Suarez’ passing was awful today and leave it at that. Not sure the other players did too much wrong from a passing stand point, especially as they often didn’t have much of an outball, were outnumbered in the middle and didn’t have a pacy wide player to pick out.

Dan on April 18, 2011 at 1:55 am

I didn’t get the impression it was just Suarez. Besides they can always pass back or sideways or hoof it upfield. A lot of what I saw looked like interceptions and wayward passes from the midfielders to me.

Any idea why Andy Carroll was so quiet ZM? Before the game I thought the towering presence of Carroll would be crucial for the match, as the duo of Koscielny and Djourou are relatively ’short’ to be able to cope with him –but in the end they managed to do very, very well with him. Oh and with Suarez too.

Oh and those two penalties were clearly penalties; no doubt them. I would not argue with the decisions. Oh and BTW this is a tactical site, so I hope to read comments on the tactical side rather than the referee decisions

Dan on April 18, 2011 at 2:01 am

Djourou is not short and has done quite well managing strikers who pose a strong aerial threat. Koscielny less so with respect to both points, but not by much. The fact that Arsenal plays a high defensive line means that aerial strikers are usually less effective, unless they are faced with a set piece situation.

Often Partisan on April 18, 2011 at 10:15 am

Because Liverpool played too deep to render him effective.
The problem is you can use a big striker as an out ball in a 4-5-1 – but even if he manages to get the ball, or flick it on, if the rest of the team is defending deep, they may not be within forty yards of the striker, which means the ball is going precisely nowhere, execpt back to Arsenal. If you want a comparison with another game, Birmingham’s win over Arsenal provides the method for using a big striker effectively in a 4-5-1, press high up the pitch, in order to get usually Bowyer in support to Zigic.
And as mentioned by Dan, the high defensive line played by Arsenal, think of it this way, if Carroll is say on the defensive line which is on the edge of the 18 yard line, if he flicks it on, that could cause real danger in the Arsenal penalty area, wheras, if he flicks it on/holds it up 40 yards from goal, even if he keeps the ball there’s no direct danger to the Arsenal goal

But did you remember the match of Arsenal versus Barcelona this year? Arsenal played an extremely high defensive line against small and short strikers such as Messi, Villa, and Pedro, right?

I’m puzzled on the tactical side of defensive line here, especially on when to use. Based on you and Dan’s arguments, high defensive line is supposed to be effective against tall and slow players (Crouch, Carroll, Berbatov), thus it does not make sense to me: Why did Wenger played such a high-line against Barca strikers at that time?

Often Partisan on April 18, 2011 at 2:19 pm

I would imagine that this was because they wanted to press Barcelona in midfield to disrupt the passing game and be in a better position to attack, and a high defensive line is a direct consequence of pressing — otherwise there’s too much space in between midfield and defense.
It was probably more a trade-off situation – trade off the risks of Messi, Pedro etc beating the offide trap and going 1v1 with the keeper for the benefit of being able to get the ball back in midfield quicker and get forward better.

Anonymous on April 18, 2011 at 2:35 pm

If you read ZM’s article about the first leg of the Arsenal v Barca quarter final from LAST year he goes into quite a lot of detail about the high line Arsenal played. Basically it was meant to squeeze the midfield and deny Xavi space and time to pick out through balls.

Of course with Clichy’s habit of playing a yard and a half behind the rest of the defence it makes this a risky strategy.

Aaron on April 18, 2011 at 12:16 am

“Therefore, midway through the first half, Dalglish instructed the Uruguyan to move from his support striker role to a left-sided position, pushing Raul Meireles infield and switching to more of a 4-5-1. This gave Liverpool more bodies in the centre, allowed them to close down, and though Arsenal continued to dominate the ball, they looked less dangerous.”

This has been my main complaint with Kenny’s tactics over the past several matches, relegating the natural box-to-box CM Meireles to the wing in favor of the quite admirable but less visionary Spearing. Yes, Raul played LM at Porto, but I’m fairly certain in looking at results with him playing a central role, behind the strikers and in front of Gerrard that LFC’s quality of offensive attack in the midfield has been that much more potent. It hasn’t happened nearly enough and, sadly, there have been claims on the part of some “fans” that Meireles isn’t good enough for the club. That’s rubbish. There are inherent limitations with the squad, namely the lack of two quality wide players, that force the hand of the manager, but of all the moves Kenny has made the keeping of Raul to the wing is perhaps the one glaring mistake.

Anonymous on April 18, 2011 at 1:39 am

spot on about Meireles being under-utilised. He is a dynamic CM who can help surport the attack from midfield like Gerrard(who being injured, can’t). Meanwhile Spearing is just a grunt player hoofing the ball around and working hard like Kuyt. If anyone should be “shunted” to a wider role it should be him. With Lucas a staple in the center for this Liverpool side it would be nice to see a more dynamic player than spearing partnering him – especially when considering one of their 2 “strikers” is a classic no. 9 (they need the support)

Mick on April 18, 2011 at 2:28 am

He has been played wide because of his contribution going forward. Meireles’ biggest attacking threat is his penetrative runs from deep, into the channels or behind defences, something he can do much more freely from a wide position than in a midfield two where he would be more constrained. Spearing and Lucas occasionally get forward, but the key here is that they must pick and choose their moments. They have to be selective. With the team’s lack of pace, Meireles forward movement is too important for him to be restricted.

To suggest Liverpool would be better with Spearing on the flank and Meireles centrally is well wide of the mark. It’s not ideal to have him wide left, though, that is true.

Mick on April 18, 2011 at 2:43 am

Oh, and Jay Spearing was excellent in the midfield despite conceding the 98th minute penalty. As was Lucas. They didn’t dominate but they were never going to against Arsenal at the Emirates. They stuck to their jobs defensively and gave the two teenage full backs all the protection they needed. They were tidy in possession as well.

The front four for Liverpool were less impressive in possession which hindered their chances of countering, particularly in the first half. Albeit they improved in the second half and Suarez did craft some of the best opportunities for himself, with help from the likes of Kuyt.

Alessandro on April 18, 2011 at 10:10 am

These points are correct about Meireles, though for me he is his most dangerous as the furthest-forward of a midfield 3 (where he played in that run of games in which he scored 5 in 6; in a freer role in front of Gerrard & Lucas).

For me, Spearing can’t hack it out wide, he was clueless there (IIRC he was played there in one of the Europa League games). I should also note Shelvey, a decent player, is likewise out-of-sorts on the wing – as he was against Arsenal in the 2nd half, making a couple of poor decisions (granted, this was his first game back from a long injury lay-off).

So the solution would seem to be to bring Maxi back in to play wide, allowing Meireles (and at times, Shelvey) to play centrally.

Anonymous on April 18, 2011 at 12:16 am

You see a side forced to play 2 young and inexperienced full backs and your eye’s light up. 27 crosses probably indicates that they did take advantage but zero completions! Cesc is just trying to reduce his value so Barca can afford him!

JH on April 18, 2011 at 12:29 am

Bet you wish you’d chosen to cover the Bolton-Stoke semi-final, eh?

Or, even better, the Celtic-Aberdeen semi-final. 4-0, but could easily have been another 9-0

Truthandinsight on April 18, 2011 at 1:19 am

It strikes me that Arsenals attacking moves are too narrow – they’re concentrated on the centre of the pitch – i.e. between the width of the penalty area. Liverpool did a very good job of packing this area with players (tucking their full-backs in to close any gaps in the channels) and breaking up Arsenals moves before they got into the penalty area (hence ZM’s surprised reaction in his review to the stat which shows Liverpool breaking up Arsenals moves outside of the penalty area).

As I was watching this game, and also now reading this review, it’s making me think of Man Utd. On this forum recently there’s been a lot of talk about Man Utd’s simplistic tactics (i.e. they “give the ball to the midfielders, get it out wide, then cross the ball.”), but even though Man Utd do do this quite frequently, I think there is much more to why they do this than simply resorting to the most simplistic tactics possible. What I mean by this, is that Man Utd as a rule employ a lot of width in their play. However, even though they get it out wide a lot, they don’t necessarily do it with the implicitness that they are constantly looking to cross the ball into the box. When they get the ball out wide it invariably drags defenders out wide to cover, thereby stretching a defensive unit, allowing gaps to appear along the defensive line (Once Man Utd go out wide, I’ve seen them move the ball back inside just as often as they cross the ball from out wide, IMO). Look at Man Utd’s first goal against Chelsea last week (Giggs’ cross across the box for Hernandez to tap in at the far post). There were two defenders out wide covering the two Man Utd players (O’Shea and Giggs), and once O’shea and Giggs combined cleverly (along with one of the two Chelsea defenders being slack) suddenly Giggs was behind the defence with the Chelsea goal at his mercy.

Where I am going with this (I hear you ask) is this: Do Arsenal need to make sure that they have more width, and perhaps concentrate on stretching teams across the pitch, before they try to play their intricate football in and around the box? Is this the same problem as was diagnosed for Chelsea on the same Man Utd/Chelsea forum the other day?

It strikes me that when Walcott plays he gives Arsenal great width and penetration, but when he doesn’t (like when he was taken off today) Arsenal suddenly become very one-dimensional in the angle of their attacks. What do people think of this – am I right or not…..?

MMT on April 18, 2011 at 5:04 am

Interesting comparison. I think one reason for the success of MU’s style comes from how quickly they change the point of attack–which is not the same as simply playing the ball out wide. A second point is how quickly they go from 0 to 100. They are exceptionally quick to spot and exploit weaknesses in the other team’s defensive shape. The goals against Chelsea were remarkable for how quickly they developed from nothing.

Arsenal are just a tired team right now, tired mentally, tired physically. To compete on four fronts, Wenger had to buy in the January transfer and didn’t. (Notice how MU is able to rotate players with greater ease.) But today’s “loss” was down 100% to a lack of focus and concentration, a lack of basic understanding of how competitive sports work. You need 3 pts and you get your penalty (deserved or not). Only now you don’t take your shirt off to celebrate like a fool. Instead you get in your teammate’s faces and play the last minutes of the game all out. You don’t allow Liverpool the chance to tie it. That’s how you win 1-0 games; that’s how you win titles.

king999 on April 18, 2011 at 7:08 am

Agree with this. It appeared to me that Arsenal stopped playing (concentrating) after they went ahead and were waiting for the final whistle. I do believe that there was another chance for Liverpool immediately after kick-off just after Arsenal had scored which wasn’t fully shown on TV here (in India) due to RVP’s celebratory shots. You’d think Arsenal would have cleared their heads at that point. The initial foul for the free kick too was very very close to being a penalty.

silverace99 on April 18, 2011 at 5:39 am

this is true but you have to mix in crossing play in order to convince the other team to spread out to defend you out wide. Unfortunately crossing quality and the aerial ability of the starting lineup for Arsenal right now are not good enough. Cutting inside is all they can do and other teams know it.

Nik on April 18, 2011 at 9:17 am

I wonder if this point about Arsenal playing narrow and Liverpool being happy to push them wide is because Liverpool knew Arsenal would be ineffective with crosses.

I think that’s borne out by the Chalkboard analysis that Arsenal’s crosses were ineffective. However, rather than this being down to the wide players, as the article comments, I wonder if Arsenal’s problemwas more that they had nobody in the box in a decent position to capitalise on the crosses?

Often, Van Persie was the only Arsenal player coming in to the box to get on the end of a cross, outflanked by at least 4 defenders, and his positioning for them isn’t the best anyway.

RA on April 18, 2011 at 12:22 pm

Indeed, it is amazingly frustrating to watch our crosses go straight to defenders over and over again. Whats worse is when we finally bring a striker on who is good in the air, and then play him on the right wing where he is useless.

TCF on April 18, 2011 at 3:12 pm

When Liverpool crossed it, even later into the game, I remember seeing 3, 4 people in the box waiting to receive. One case in point being when Suarez fluffed it from a tight angle with two free in the box to pass to. Arsenal, by contrast, just didn’t seem to have the urgency to get bodies into the box. May sound a cliche but in this case I think it is true

MMT on April 18, 2011 at 5:05 pm

Agree with this. Arsenal definitely missed Sagna’s crossing. This said, it is still amazing how little the wing backs produce. Perhaps that is the result of 433, but far post runs (from anyone) are few and far between–ever see Nasri even close to getting a ball played across the box? Clichy? Sagna? Wilshire? Once VP comes wide to receive the ball, there is no one even trying to get inside–not from the wings or from the center.

RA on April 18, 2011 at 10:10 pm

Nothing new with that. Man utd have been playing like that against us for years and we still haven’t beaten them, Chelsea had great success with that too.

Liverpool really were a lot poorer in an attacking sense than they had been vs City. Didn’t help that there was a bigger gap between midfield and attack, and that the gameplan seemed to be to hit Carroll and Suarez directly (see Reina’s passing statistics in particular – they look like a throwback to the Hodgson era), but the two forwards’ passing wasn’t much cop. Good to see the teenage full-backs getting through the game largely unscathed.

Thought Arsenal’s movement in and around the penalty area left much to be desired. Often they’d get into what looked like goalscoring positions (i.e. one of Diaby, Fabregas, Van Persie or Nasri would have the ball at their feet on the edge of the area) but have no-one moving into the available space. Probably haven’t seen enough full Arsenal games this season to know whether they were worse than usual in that respect today.

Sam on April 18, 2011 at 5:18 am

Yeah, we better buy another dynamic creative player this summer, because on this evidence we’re just as dependent on Suarez (and to a lesser.extent, Carroll) for inspiration as we ever were on Gerrard and Torres.

KC on April 19, 2011 at 5:34 pm

I guess they were poor in attack because their two full backs weren’t experienced enough to make runs up to help out with setting up attacks. And the two CMs were concentrating on covering for the weakened back four. Its hard to blame the front four when injuries and situations like these happen.

dw on April 18, 2011 at 6:34 am

I’ve never seen a team waste so many corners in a match.

Dan on April 18, 2011 at 11:58 pm

Or crosses. Completely appalling. I think Walcott had 8 and didn’t connect once (which to me settles the argument about Liverpool’s young left back, since if Walcott could actually cross worth a damn it would have been a rout). They got so many I kept thinking “why don’t they put on Bendtner” Except of course when they did, Wenger put him on the right wing. Sigh!

Sam on April 19, 2011 at 3:38 am

Eh, I don’t know. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFtkRDYt_Ag
Walcott gets a few crosses in against Robinson but a) Arsenal were giving him the ball at every opportunity for about 30 min b) even when Walcott gets in the cross, he’s being challenged enough by Robinson that it would be unlikely for even a good crosser to send in a good one. Not to mention Robinson seemed to have really good pace. I, at least was impressed. He’s 17!

Dan on April 19, 2011 at 9:29 pm

Maybe. They got in 31, which is a huge number of crosses (as far as this Arsenal team goes). And Walcott got twice as many as any other Arsenal player. Problem is, the only Gunners who can cross consistently well are Sagna, who was injured, and van Persie, who is centre forward. He did stick to Walcott quite well but I honestly think his success has more to do with the fact that crossing isn’t really Theo’s game.

David on April 20, 2011 at 4:21 am

Arshavin’s also a good crosser but he started on the bench.

Carat on April 18, 2011 at 10:31 am

Losing to 2 newly promoted teams at home…
Losing to your biggest rival after being 2-0 up at home…
Drawing a match after being up 4-0…
Losing to a team fielding John O’Shea and Darren Gibson as midfielders….

Carling don’t do jokes, but if they did…

Mark on April 18, 2011 at 1:25 pm

Arsenal are the only team that could do that. If the same situation had happened to United, they would have the know how to see it out, similar to Chelsea. See that little pussy foot tackle by Koscielny on the edge of the box, imagine Terry/Vidic going in like that, they would have just smashed it and got it as far away as possible.

I’ve said all along United would win it, and Arsenal would come 2nd, and coming 2nd is Arsenal’s only real aim now, they should be more worried about Chelsea, who are actually in good form in the league and can’t be ruled out completely.

As for Liverpool, I’ve been so impressed with ‘King Kenny’. His playing and managerial career were long before my time, and I had an assumption that he would be a Maradona type of manager, in that he’d just send his teams to go out and play and hope to outscore the opposition by having an abundance of attacking talent, in reality he’s quite the opposite, Liverpool under him have been extremely organised, very disciplined and they’ve also got some very good results, I can see them being a genuine threat next season with a few adjustments over summer.

Just a quick mention for Lucas Leiva. He’s quite a joke figure amongst English football fans, when in fact, he is a very, very underated player. I’m sure people have this perception of him being useless based on the fact he doesn’t do the stand out things that Gerrard OCASSIONALLY does, but he is such a key player for Liverpool. Positionally he is very good, he constantly breaks up play, and you rarely see him conceded posession, and this is all in a position that is not actually natural to him, before he came to Liverpool he was more of an attacking midfielder.

Also a quick mention for Spearing, another player with a bright future. What a work horse, he was everywhere on the pitch yesterday and made many important tackles. In a day and age where foreigners coming into English clubs is so much more prominent, it’s good to see a local lad like Spearing make it all the way through the youth team and into the first team, well done to him, shame he’ll probably get shunted back out to the reserve team and out on loan when Liverpool have Gerrard back and inevitably try and fit a team around him.

RA on April 18, 2011 at 3:19 pm

Lucas isn’t a joke figure any more, everyone can see how much he has improved. People laughed at him during the start of his liverpool career because he was very very poor and he was assumed to be another of Benitez’s poor buys.

Josef on April 18, 2011 at 6:27 pm

I guess if you’ve said it all along, it was foolish for anyone else to disagree. And overhauling a 6 point difference with 6 games to play, especially when one is head to head, is well known to be completely impossible, so Arsenal should obviously not be thinking about 1st. Thanks so much for enlightening us poor benighted folks.

Also, way to notice Lucas about 12 months late. Maybe you’d like chip in with an observation about the increasing prevalence of the 4231…

Mark on April 18, 2011 at 11:37 pm

I’ve merely stated a prediction, never said anything about anyone else disagreeing or me being absolutely right.

And where does my points about Lucas state that I didn’t think he was a good player 12 months ago? I’ve always thought he’s a decent, underated and effective player.

‘Maybe you’d like chip in with an observation about the increasing prevalence of the 4231′…

Don’t try and be cocky and be little someone over the Internet, you’re comment wasn’t funny at all, makes you look like a bit of an idiot to be honest, try and say something productive if you can.

Sam on April 18, 2011 at 8:02 pm

What to do with Spearing is actually an interesting question for next year. He’s earned the right to be in the squad with his last few performances, and he’s certainly cheap. But if we add a creative CM (as is expected, and we probably need to), and continue to play mostly 4-4-2ish, then it’s hard to see how he fits. Ideally, he’d be Lucas’ backup/Poulsen’s replacement (we’ve been lucky that Lucas hasn’t gotten hurt), but he doesn’t have the positional nous to be the primary DM, and he’s certainly not going to push Gerrard or Adam/whoever out of the team, not mention Shelvey and even Coady will be coming up behind him. It’ll be interesting to find out how Kenny and Commolli see.

Dan on April 18, 2011 at 5:42 pm

Arsenal should have been leading that game at half time but the attack is misfiring badly. Defensively the team has been very, very solid, but the cutting edge up front just isn’t there. Yesterday was just the second goal they have conceded at home in the league in 2011. They increasingly face deep, well organised defences and are missing the extra impetus. If you look at Arsenal’s games in the early part of the season, where are Nasri’s quick one-twos on the edge of the box? Where are Song’s late runs from deep? Where are Walcott’s dashes into the opposition’s left hand channel? This is how Arsenal was able to crack open deep defences at the turn of the year and now it looks as if they have forgotten how.

dw on April 19, 2011 at 12:07 am

Arsenal need help from Newcastle tomorrow!

Dan on April 20, 2011 at 5:40 pm

Done. Now they have to make use of it.

Yang on April 19, 2011 at 9:27 am

Arsenal have been shown same pattern crumbling at closing period of season.
I think Arsenal couldn’t manage players stamina wisely. Too much energy is used at opening period of season and get exhausted at the end; lost concentration; feet betray their own head etc.
Most of people laughed so hard at last 8 min period of game; It was just incredible.

stharries on April 20, 2011 at 1:46 pm

Rather than fielding Bendtner out on the right, he should have been playing upfront in the CF role, with Van Persie dropping back into a trequartista role, and Fabregas moving back to CM replacing Diaby. It seems like a waste and almost a crime to field the tallest attacker on the pitch on the wing when chasing a much needed goal. This would also enable use of the long ball tactic when things become desperate.

aRob on April 21, 2011 at 2:05 am

I would rather speak on the penatly given up by Eboue. How any player at any level commit such a senseless foul is a crime. To think the twist in the title was from that is incredible. It wasnt like it was Louie Suarez in the corner but a rather non creative Brazilan who was no threat what so ever.